The Test

Our benchmarks this time around will consist of our previously tested standard benchmarks. The scores of older cards have simply been copied from our old test (from our first X800 review). Performance gains on most applications haven't been huge on the older cards with the latest couple of driver revisions from either camp, but these numbers should still only be used as a reference point.

Unfortunately, the 4.7 Catalyst drivers were released the day after testing was completed, and were not able to make it into the article. We will, of course, be looking into the performance of new drivers in other articles (though the 1 per month release schedule of ATI is tough to keep pace with at times).

Performance Test Configuration
Processor(s): AMD Athlon 64 3400+
RAM: 2 x 512MB OCZ PC3200 (2:2:3:6)
Hard Drives Seagate Barracuda 7200.7 120GB PATA
Video AGP & IDE Bus Master Drivers: VIA Hyperion 4in1 4.51
Video Card(s): eVGA GeForce 6800 Ultra Extreme
NVIDIA GeForce 6800 Ultra
NVIDIA GeForce 6800 GT
LeadTek GeForce 6800
NVIDIA GeForce FX 5950 Ultra
ATI Radeon X800 XT Platinum Edition
ATI Radeon X800 XT
ATI Radeon X800 Pro
ATI Radeon 9800 XT
ATI Radeon 9700 Pro
Video Drivers: NVIDIA 61.45 Beta
NVIDIA 61.11 Beta (5950U)
ATI Catalyst 4.6>
ATI Catalyst 4.4 (9800/9700)
Operating System(s): Windows XP Professional SP1
Power Supply: PC Power & Cooling Turbo Cool 510
Motherboards: FIC K8T800 (754 pin)

For easy reference, here is the pixel width, core clock speed and memory data rate of all current generation parts:

NVIDIA GeForce 6800: 12 pipes, 325 core, 700 mem
NVIDIA GeForce 6800 GT: 16 pipes, 350 core, 1000 mem
NVIDIA GeForce 6800 Ultra: 16 pipes, 400 core, 1100 mem
NVIDIA GeForce 6800 Ultra Extreme: 16 pipes, 460 core, 1200 mem

ATI Radeon X800 Pro: 12 pipes, 475 core, 900 mem
ATI Radeon X800 XT: 16 pipes, 500 core, 1000 mem
ATI Radeon X800 XT Platinum Edition: 16 pipes, 520 core, 1120 mem

Here is the pricing data that we gathered from pricewatch and our own RealTime Pricing Engine (all prices are USD).

NVIDIA GeForce FX 5950: $380
NVIDIA GeForce 6800: $300
NVIDIA GeForce 6800 GT: $410
NVIDIA GeForce 6800 Ultra: $540
NVIDIA GeForce 6800 Ultra Extreme: $?

ATI Radeon 9700 Pro: $180
ATI Radeon 9800 XT: $400
ATI Radeon X800 Pro: $420
ATI Radeon X800 XT: $540
ATI Radeon X800 XT Platinum Edition: $?

We don't yet have any reliable pricing information for the 6800 Ultra Extreme or the X800 XT Platinum Edition. With the 6800 Ultra and X800 XT both at $540, we can expect the beefed up versions of these cards to be priced a little more. We'll guess $600 each as the price points for the ultra high end cards. Who knows whether or not this will prove to be the case, but that's the best that we can do right now.

We have seen 6800 GTs on sale for their MSRP of $400 and there are a few links on pricewatch showing $410, but we couldn't touch an X800 Pro for less than $420.

We are always trying to bring more sanity to the decision making process, so for this series of tests, we will add a value graph to each performance test that will essentially rank all the cards by price/performance.

Even choosing to graph this data requires that we essentially assign a "value" to frame rate. Unfortunately, the way every individual values frame rate is unique, and we can't tailor make a graph for every individual. The once constant when graphing this data will be rank: no matter what you do, higher frame rates will raise rank, and lower prices will raise rank. Therefore, to try to help alleviate the problem of attaching a dollar value to every frame, we have decided to use a log scale. Specifically, our value graphs will be based on the following equation:

Value = 10 * log(100 * performance / cost)

We multiply performance / cost by 100 in order to avoid the problem of negative log values (our graphing engine doesn't like that), and we multiply by 10 for readability.

It is important, when looking at this data, to remember that performance and value need to be taken into account at the same time. In certain price difference situations, (for instance between the 6800 GT and X800 Pro), performance will be in favor of one and value the other. In these cases, the $10 USD difference may or may not be an issue. It's up to the reader to be the final judge.

But, that's enough talk. Let's move on to the numbers.

The Cards Aquamark 3 Performance
Comments Locked

46 Comments

View All Comments

  • Drayvn - Friday, July 9, 2004 - link

    Actually i just found it for $530 over here in the UK
  • Drayvn - Friday, July 9, 2004 - link

    In England the price of the XT-PE is about $565 and u could probably find it lower, at around $550 to $540...
  • Noli - Friday, July 9, 2004 - link

    Guys if you don't like the value information 'overkill', er... just don't hover your mouse over the graphs?
    Actually my beef is slightly different which is why do anandtech log the fps/$ ?? There may be a good reason but am not sure what it is...
  • Marsumane - Friday, July 9, 2004 - link

    Something that I dont think is quite right is that they are doing these benchmarks to determine the value of a card. If you use SM2.0 for the 6800 series and the X800 series you will not be seeing the entire value of purchasing a 6800 based graphics card. SM3.0 IS A FACTOR IN VALUE!
  • DarkKnight - Friday, July 9, 2004 - link

    I completely agree with #18, just too much value information for me. In the end of an article just give a graph of the overall value, something like they do at THG.
  • DarkKnight - Friday, July 9, 2004 - link

  • ZobarStyl - Friday, July 9, 2004 - link

    I love my LeadTek 4200, and the 6800nu is right up my alley...not like I need 256 for anything I do anyway. Great article, now I'm sure that once the gouging stops if I can find one for 250 it's mine. And ATi fanboys please stop posting their prices like they are wrong, everyone is overcharging right now...and the XTPE does not equal the XT #17...if the PE costs the same as the XT, who the hell will buy the XT when the PE is clocked higher stock and performs better?

    Hell at my local Best Buy the Pro (yes, the Pro) is proudly sold for 499.99; so much for the MSRP...
  • rjm55 - Friday, July 9, 2004 - link

    #18 - I infer that you meant "I am not implying . . ." in your comment.

    Derek - The "value" thing is a good idea, but using it in every graph is really more information than any of us need - which makes it more confusing than it needs to be. Not many are interested in comparing bucks per frame in Eve at 1600x1200 to bucks per frame in Halo, for example. What's in the article about value is geeky overkill, when what I want to know is true overall value, or bang for the buck.

    Maybe you can settle on a bench ot two to best illustrate value instead of making it so complicated you have to run a computer analysis to figure it out.
  • binger - Friday, July 9, 2004 - link

    nice article, but too bad you didn't touch the issues of heat and noise. for me, those factors are far more decisive than, say, a 10$ price premium or a performance difference of a couple of fps.
  • deathwalker - Friday, July 9, 2004 - link

    An after thought to my original post on this review...there seems to be a great deal of emphasis put on 1600 X 1200 performance in these reviews..I know there are still a great number of gamers out there still using CRT moniotors..but..with the growing popularity of LCD monitors this 1600 X 1200 performance range is unobtainable for most LCD owners as most 17" and 19" LCD monitors operate with 1280 X 1024 as the optimal native setting. I am not infering though that 1600 X 1200 is not revelant in this testing process...it's just an observation.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now